(Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 146) Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, Menahem...

8/19/2019 (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 146) Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, Menahem Mor-Flavius Josephu…

1/452


2/452

Flavius Josephus


3/452

Supplements

to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism

Editor

Benjamin G. Wright, IIIDepartment of Religion Studies, Lehigh University

Associate Editors

Florentino García MartínezQumran Institute, University of Groningen

Hindy NajmanDepartment and Centre for the Study of Religion, University of oronto

Advisory Board

. – .. – . – .. –

.. – . Ć – ..... –. – . – ... –. -

VOLUME 146


4/452

Flavius Josephus

Interpretation and History

Edited by

Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor

LEIDEN • BOSON2011


5/452

Tis book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Flavius Josephus : interpretation and history / edited by Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and

Menahem Mor. p. cm. — (Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism ; v. 146) “Tis volume was born of an international conference entitled ‘Making history:Josephus and historical method’ held at the University of Haifa from 2–6 July,2006”—Introd. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-19126-6 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Josephus, Flavius—Congresses.2. Jews—History—168 B.C.–135 A.D.—Historiography—Congresses. I. Pastor, Jack,1947– II. Stern, Pnina. III. Mor, Menahem.

DS115.9.J6F54 2011 933.0072’02—dc22

2010049093

ISSN 1384-2161ISBN 978 90 04 19126 6

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Te Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permissionfrom the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly toTe Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910,Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.


6/452

CONENS

List of Contributors ............................................................................ ixList of Illustrations ............................................................................. xiAbbreviations ...................................................................................... xiii

Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Te Historical Chronology of the Hasmonean Period in theWar and Antiquities of Flavius Josephus: Separating Factfrom Fiction .................................................................................... 7Kenneth Atkinson

Socio-economic Hierarchy and its Economic Foundationsin First Century Galilee: Te Evidence from Yodefat andGamla ............................................................................................... 29 Mordechai Aviam

Le Système Sacriciel de Flavius Josèphe au Livre III des Antiquitès Juives ( Ant . 3.224–236) .............................................. 39Christophe Batsch

Between Fact and Fiction: Josephus’ Account of theDestruction of the emple ............................................................ 53 Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev

Flavius Josephus in Rome ................................................................. 65 John Curran

Bemerkungen zum Aufstand des Judas Galilaeus sowie zumBiblischen Bilderverbot bei Josephus, Hippolyt undPseudo-Hieronymus ...................................................................... 87Niclas Förster

Reconstructing Exodus radition: Moses in the Second Bookof Josephus’ Antiquities ................................................................. 111Giovanni Frulla


7/452

vi

Unity and Chronology in the Jewish Antiquities ......................... 125Dov Gera

Polybius and Josephus on Rome ..................................................... 149Erich S. Gruen

Convenient Fiction or Causal Factor? Te Questioningof Jewish Antiquity according to Against Apion 1.2 .............. 163Gunnar Haaland

Where is the emple Site of Onias IV in Egypt? ......................... 177

Gohei Hata

Constructing Herod as a yrant: Assessing Josephus’ ParallelPassages ........................................................................................... 193 Jan Willem van Henten

Josephus at Jotapata: Why Josephus Wrote What He Wrote ..... 217Tessel M. Jonquière

Josephus on Herod’s Spring from the Shadowsof the Parthian Invasion ............................................................... 227 Aryeh Kasher

Josephus on Poisoning and Magic Cures or, On the Meaningof Pharmakon ................................................................................. 247Samuel S. Kottek

Josephus and Discrepant Sources ................................................... 259Etienne Nodet

Josephus, the Τemple, and the Jewish War .................................. 279Eyal Regev

Te Purposes and Functions of the Synagogue in Late Secondemple Period Judaea: Evidence from Josephus andArchaeological Investigation ....................................................... 295

Samuel Rocca


8/452

vii

Propaganda, Fiktion und Symbolik: die Bedeutung desJerusalemer empels im Werk des Josephus ........................... 315

Gottfried Schimanowski

Josephus, Catullus, Divine Providence, and the Date of the Judean War ..................................................................................... 331Daniel R. Schwartz

Josephus the Stage Manager at the Service of Josephus theDramatist: Masada as est Case ................................................. 353Yuval Shahar

Josephus and Justus: Te Place of Chapter 65 (336–367)in Life, the Autobiography of Flavius Josephus ....................... 381Pnina Stern

A Jewish Priest in Rome ................................................................... 397 Michael Tuval

“o be or not to be . . .” An Historical Interpretation of2 Kings 17 in Josephus’ Antiquities ........................................... 413 József Zsengellér

General Index ..................................................................................... 431


9/452


10/452

LIS OF CONRIBUORS

Kenneth Atkinson, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa,USA

Mordechai Aviam, Institute for Galilean Archaeology, KinneretCollege, Israel

Christophe Batsch, Université de Lille, Lille, France

Miriam Ben Zeev , Ben Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel

John Curran, Te Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, NorthernIreland

Niclas Förster , Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Institutum JudaicumDelitzschianum, Münster, Germany

Giovanni Frulla, Istituto eologico Marchigiano, Ancona, Italy

Dov Gera, Ben Gurion Univ. of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Erich S. Gruen, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA

Gunnar Haaland , Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway

Gohei Hata, ama Art University, okyo, Japan

Jan Willem van Henten, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, TeNetherlands

Tessel Jonquière, Amsterdam, Te Netherlands

Aryeh Kasher , el Aviv University, el Aviv, Israel

Samuel S. Kottek, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel


11/452

x

Etienne Nodet , École Biblique, Jerusalem, Israel

Eyal Regev , Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Samuel Rocca, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Ariel, Israel

Gottfried Schimanowski, Schulreferat Saarbruecken, Germany

Daniel R. Schwartz , Te Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem,Israel

Yuval Shahar , el Aviv University, el Aviv, Israel

Pnina Stern, Kiryat Motzkin, Israel

Michael Tuval , Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

József Zsengellér , Karoli Gaspar Reformed University, Budapest,Hungary


12/452


13/452


14/452

ABBREVIAIONS

We have adopted the abbreviation of the SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies, Ed. Pat-rick H. Alexander et al., Peabody 1999. Additional abbreviations are asfollows:

IGRR Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas pertinentes, I. Edited by

R. Cagnat et al.SCI Scripta Classica Israelica


15/452


16/452

INRODUCION

Regarding Josephus Flavius one might paraphrase Churchill and say:“Never in the history o history has so much been written by so manyabout so ew”. As cynical as that statement might appear at irst, it hasmore than just a kernel o truth. Josephus supports an entire world oresearch which encompasses Biblical studies, Jewish history, Helleni-stic and Roman history, New estament studies, Jewish hought and

Philosophy, Land o Israel studies, Classical languages, and o coursethe study o Josephus himsel as both historian and public man. Inthis volume alone o twenty our articles we have ound the ollowingtopics: Jewish ritual, art, bible, political history, autobiography, textualstudies, economic history, Jewish sects, magic and medicine, archaeo-logy, and the history o the Jewish Diaspora. Hopeully the volume wepresent beore you is another, worthwhile, contribution to the worldo study that Josephus provides.

Tis volume was born o an international conerence entitled “Mak-ing History: Josephus and Historical Method” held at the University oHaia rom 2–6 July, 2006. Te conerence brought together scholarsrom eleven countries, many languages, disciplines, and affiliations.In all, twenty eight lectures were presented o which twenty our areincluded in this volume.

Te conerence included guided visits to the archaeological excava-tions o Sepphoris and Yodeat led by archaeologists actually excavat-ing these sites which are so important to the writings o Josephus.

Te conerence organizers are grateul to Zeev Weiss and MordechaiAviam or guiding us through the antiquities o Sepphoris and theremains o the battle o Yodeat. Te conerence also included a guidedtour o the valuable and interesting collection o the Hecht Museumat the University o Haia. We also wish to extend our thanks to themuseum curator Ora Rimon or her hospitality and generosity insharing her knowledge o the museum’s rich assortment o artiactsand displays.

We begin this collection o articles with Kenneth Atkinson who pres-

ents a new analysis o how Josephus used his historical sources to createhis version o Hasmonean history rom the time o John Hyrcanus I toAristobulus II. Atkinson examines the history in Josephus comparing


17/452

2

it to papyri, inscriptions, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other literature toreconstruct the chronology o the latter Hasmonean period.

Mordechai Aviam, the excavator o Yodeat, uses the archaeologi-cal discoveries ound at that unortunate city and material ound inother Galilean sites to reach a new appraisal o the socio-economicstructure o the Galilee up to the time o the First Jewish Revolt. Hiscareul reading o Josephus in light o the archaeology contradicts thecommon idea o a society schematically divided between rich urbandwellers and poor rural villagers.

Analyzing Josephus’ systematic presentation o the temple sacricesChristophe Batsch nds indications o how the “sacricial systems”

were able to evolve into a “non-sacricial system” afer the destructiono the temple, thereby enabling Judaism to survive without them.

Miriam Ben Zeev reexamines the controversy regarding Josephus’account o the burning o the Jerusalem temple. Rather than simplyrestating and supporting either Josephus’ version or the contradictoryaccount o Sulpicius Severus, Ben Zeev scrutinizes the concerns under-lying Josephus’ version.

Continuing with the question o Josephus’ concerns afer the war,John Curran places him within the context o the Jews in Rome, andtheir relationship with the Roman society and government there.

Niclas Förster takes a look at the Patristic sources and discovers thatthey have as yet not been ully employed as a basis o comparison tothe writings o Josephus on the Fourth Philosophy and the Zealots.

Te Exodus traditions as presented by Josephus in the Jewish Antiq-uities are examined by Giovanni Frulla. He nds tracks o the religiousexpectations o the Hellenistic and pre-Christian Judaism. Moreoverhis examination reveals aspects o the oral traditions current in rst

century Judaism.Dov Gera discusses the uniying chronology o the Antiquities,pointing out that Josephus did not divide the book into biblical andpost-biblical halves, but rather modern scholars have done so. He sug-gests that a detailed inspection o the chronological system used byJosephus might explain some o the oddities in the narrative.

Te striking parallels between the careers, situations, and writing oJosephus and Polybius are considered by Erich Gruen. He brings atten-tion to a little known aspect o their writings: a subversive sub-stratum

that criticizes the discreditable actions and behavior o the RomanEmpire. Tis censure o Rome, suggests Gruen, may increase our under-standing o both these historians and their anticipated audience.


18/452

3

Discussing Josephus’ claim that in his time there were those whodismissed the antiquity o the Jewish nation Gunnar Haaland con-

cludes that this claim was not a literary convention used to justiythe writing o Contra Apionem. He suggests that these claims were areection o a historical reality and were a causal actor or the com-position o this work.

Gohei Hata conronts current and past suggestions or the locationo the temple o Onias in Egypt that Josephus described. He suggests apossible answer based on the archaeological work recently done in thatcountry and comes to the conclusion that ell el Yehudiyeh, the pres-ent avorite cannot be right. He suggests that the place named Bubastis

(the present ell Basta) is the site o Onias IV’s temple.essel Jonquière revisits the cave in which Josephus hid afer the

all o Yodeat. She points out that the scene as related by Josephusis unique to War in that it contains the longest prayer quoted in thatwork and the only time he explicitly claims to be a prophet. Jonquièresuggests that a reexamination o this story might shed light on Jose-phus’ way o writing.

Te contribution o Aryeh Kasher highlights the crucial importanceo the Parthian invasion o the eastern Roman Empire as the basisor Herod’s rise to royalty. Kasher explains that the conuence o theinvasion, the Parthian support or Herod’s rivals, and the political sit-uation in Rome made the crowning o Herod almost inevitable.

Josephus’ wide-range o interests brings us to Samuel S. Kottek,a physician as well as an historian, who relates the importance anddiversity o magic cures and poisons in Josephus’ writings and in hiscontemporaneous society. Kottek also discusses the inuence o thesepractices and belies on medieval magic and medicine.

Etienne Nodet considers that Josephus’ sloppiness as well as his biasesare not the only explanation or his strange statements or inconsistencies.Nodet suggests that these can be explained by his attempt to preserve allthe data that was available to him. His paper presents a sample o suchcases, which may provide a glimpse into Josephus’ biblical sources orallow a reassessment o the historical details in his works.

Post-modern history can be applied to Josephus’ writings as dem-onstrated by Eyal Regev. He uses Josephus’ attacks on the Zealot partyas an instrument to reconstruct the Zealot arguments against the so-

called moderates. In so doing, Regev provides a case-study o theapplicability o post-modern theory to historical research on Josephusand his writings.


19/452

4

An understanding o the archaeology o the ancient synagoguethrough the use o Josephus’ works is the contribution o Samuel

Rocca. He expands on the role o the synagogue not only as a placeo prayer, but as a multipurpose public building used or assembliesand courts o justice. He compares the synagogue and its uses to thesituation o similar buildings in non-Jewish localities.

Gottried Schimanowski discusses the importance o the temple inJerusalem as a symbol, and as collection o symbolic artiacts and howthese in turn correspond to the philosophies o the Gentiles.

Book 7 o Josephus’ War is the subject o Daniel R. Schwartz’scontribution to this volume. He concludes that it was nished beore

the reign o Domitian, however it was reworked as a result o thetransormation o Josephus rom a Jew with Judean values into aDiasporan Jew.

Yuval Shahar rescues Josephus’ topographical descriptions rom thecriticisms leveled at them by historians and archaeologists. He dem-onstrates that in act Josephus’ descriptions are accurate, and explainsthe ostensible differences between the description and the physicalreality. Shahar’s conclusions can be useul in assessing the physicaldescriptions or other locations such as Yodat, arichaeae, Gamla,and Jerusalem.

Te real reasons or the composition o the Life by Josephus aretaken to task by Pnina Stern. She nds that only chapter 65 in Life is a rebuttal o the attacks by Justus o iberius, but that the rest othe composition was written or reasons having nothing to do withJustus.

Michael uval points out that in Rome afer the destruction Jose-phus attached great importance to his status as a priest although he

was ar rom Jerusalem and the temple no longer existed. He suggeststhat the priestly status was signicant to him because o its high statusin the eyes o Diaspora Jews and pagans.

Starting with the New estament narrative o the murder o theinnocents Jan Willem van Henten compares the divergent descrip-tions o Herod as a tyrant ound in Josephus’ War and Antiquities.He assesses the accuracy o these descriptions and their useulness astopoi about tyrants in general.

Józse Zsengellér examines Josephus’ interpretation and version o

the all o the Kingdom o Israel and the origin o the Samaritans.Josephus was the rst who interpreted the passage o 2 Kings 17 whichrelates these events. Josephus connected the Samaritan problem o his


20/452

5

own time to the explanation o this story on the exile and repopu-lation o Samaria/Northern Israel. Zsengellér attempts to determine

what actors lead to Josephus’ conception o this event.In closing we grateully acknowledge the assistance and hard work

provided by ami Laviel and Pninit al o the University o Haia.We also wish to acknowledge the contribution o the University oHaia, Faculty o Humanities and the Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Center orthe Study o Eretz-Israel or their support o the conerence. We alsowish to express our thanks to im Langille or his suggestions. Finally,we wish to express our gratitude to Oranim, the Academic College oEducation or its support in bringing this volume to publication.

he Editors


21/452


22/452

HE HISORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF HE HASMONEANPERIOD IN HE WAR AND ANIQUIIES OF FLAVIUS

JOSEPHUS: SEPARAING FAC FROM FICION

Kenneth Atkinson

I. Introduction

Te writings o Flavius Josephus are among the most important texts orstudents o the Hasmonean period. Although Flavius Josephus wrotehis books nearly a century afer the end o Hasmonean rule, he hadaccess to many lost historical works that documented this time. Unor-tunately, a comparison o events, battle narratives, and geographicallocations in Josephus’ books and other works, such as 1–2 Maccabees,that also recount the Hasmonean period reveal many differences. It isdifficult to determine which, i any, o these or other texts have pre-served a reliable historical chronology or the major events o the Has-monean era. Tis article addresses this issue by exploring Josephus’alteration o history to reshape his presentations o the Hasmoneanrulers rom John Hyrcanus I to Aristobulus II. In the process, it willoffer a new chronology or some events o this time that differs sub-stantially rom the sequence presented in Josephus’ works.

Tis study ocuses on how Josephus has creatively shaped his depic-tions o the Hasmonean rulers rom John Hyrcanus I to Aristobulus II.Because most o Josephus’ sources are no longer extant, I will not

engage the large body o scholarship on the nature or identity o theselost works. Rather, I will highlight some neglected texts and archaeo-logical evidence that help us to understand how Josephus has crafedhis accounts o the Hasmonean period. For each Hasmonean ruler, Iwill begin with a section simply titled ction, which merely summarizesJosephus’ accounts. Tis is ollowed by a act section that will attemptto offer a historically accurate account o what actually occurred. Teconclusion offers a ew observations regarding the importance oJosephus’ social location in Rome or understanding why he chose to

revise his portrayals o the Hasmonean rulers to produce books thatare, to a great extent, works o historical ction.


23/452

8

II. John Hyrcanus

1. Fiction

John Hyrcanus is clearly the hero o the Hasmonean period in Jose-phus’ books.1 According to the Antiquities, Hyrcanus was a pious“youth” ( Ant. 13.228) when he became high priest afer the assassi-nation o his ather Simon by Ptolemy. He delayed his attack uponPtolemy’s stronghold in order to offer sacrices in the temple as highpriest. Hyrcanus was orced to abandon his siege due to the arrival othe Sabbatical year. According to Josephus, he had no choice in the

matter since Jews were not permitted to ght at this time.Upon returning to Jerusalem, Hyrcanus was immediately attacked

by Antiochus VII Sidetes. In War ’s brie account, Hyrcanus had nooption but to plunder David’s tomb to pay off Antiochus. He thenhired a mercenary orce to protect Judea. However, in the Antiqui-ties Hyrcanus mounted a spirited deense. During Antiochus’ siegeo Jerusalem, Hyrcanus expelled the non-combatants rom the city toconserve his diminishing supplies. Although Antiochus did not helpthese innocent civilians, it is Hyrcanus who comes across as the villaino Josephus’ narrative because he too allowed them to starve. Onceagain, the arrival o a religious holiday—the Feast o abernacles—ended Hyrcanus’ plight. Antiochus agreed to respect this estival andprovide the necessary sacrices as well as make peace with Hyrcanus.Because o his piety, Antiochus purportedly earned the sobriquet“Eusebes” ( Ant. 13.244).

Josephus’ War and Antiquities disagree as to what happened next.In the War (1.62) , Hyrcanus invaded Syria while Antiochus ought the

Parthians. Hyrcanus managed to annex several cities and destroyedSamaria.2 However, in the Antiquities, Hyrcanus was obligated torender military assistance to the Seleucids and accompany Antiochuson his Parthian campaign ( Ant. 13.249–53). According to Josephus,Hyrcanus was saved or the third time by the arrival o a religiousholiday. Afer deeating the Parthians in battle, Antiochus had to leaveHyrcanus and his troops behind so that they could celebrate Pentecost

1

1 Macc. 16:18–25; Ant. 13.230–300; War 1.54–69.2 Josephus lists the ollowing cities: Madaba, Samaga/Samoga, Shechem, Mt. Ger-izim where the Cutheans lived, and the Idumean cities o Adora and Marisa (War1.63; Ant. 13.255–257).


24/452

9

and the Sabbath: times during which Jews were supposedly not per-mitted to ght. According to the Antiquities, Antiochus was killed in

a subsequent engagement with the Parthians and much o his armywas destroyed. Hyrcanus then took advantage o Antiochus’ death andinvaded Syria.

Te Antiquities places Hyrcanus’ Syrian invasion ollowing Anti-ochus’ death ( Ant. 13.254). Tis took place while Hyrcanus was takingpart in his Parthian campaign, which is omitted in the War (1.1.62). Itcontinues with his destruction o the schismatic Samaritan temple onMt. Gerizim and his renewal o his amily’s treaties with Rome ( Ant.13.259–66). Te Seleucids were so weak at this time that Hyrcanus

declared his independence ( Ant. 268–84).3 His sons Judah Aristobu-lus and Antigonus then besieged Samaria. God inormed Hyrcanus otheir victory while he burned incense in the temple ( Ant. 13.275–83).Tis is ollowed by a description o the avorable position o the Jewsin Egypt under Cleopatra III ( Ant. 13.285–87). Next, the Pharisees,acting out o envy, challenged Hyrcanus’ legitimacy to hold the highpriesthood. Consequently, Hyrcanus had no choice but to join the Sad-ducees since the Pharisees now clearly represented the masses and thepotential or mob rule ( Ant. 13.288–98. C. War 1.67). Josephus con-cluded both works with a eulogy, which stated that God had bestowedonly upon Hyrcanus the three highest privileges: secular rule, the highpriesthood, and the gif o prophecy ( Ant. 13.299–319; War 1.68–9).In his War Josephus commented that Hyrcanus had even predictedthe downall o Judah Aristobulus and Antigonus, as well as the riseo Alexander Jannaeus (War 1.69; C. Ant. 13.322–23).

2. Fact

Josephus’ account o Antiochus’ one-year siege o Jerusalem and itsabrupt end to celebrate a religious estival sounds rather implausible.However, there may be some truth to this seemingly improbable story.Josephus and Porphyry offer different dates or this siege, a differentia-tion which may be the result o later scribal errors. However, it cannot

3 In War 1.65 Josephus mistakenly reers to Antiochus VIII Grypus by the surname

Aspendius. He corrects this error in Ant. 13.276. For this issue, see urther Sievers2005, 35. For Hyrcanus’ coinage as a sign o his independence, see urther Schürer 1973, 1: 210–11; Rooke 2000, 305; VanderKam 2004, 307–8. For the problems inSeleucia at this time, see urther Bevan 1902, 247–68; Schürer, 1973, 1: 207–9.


25/452

10

be ruled out that the conicting dates they offer or this siege reectdifferent calendars (Macedonian verses Attic) used in the sources they

consulted. Te siege clearly lasted over a year since Josephus men-tioned that it began during the setting o the Pleiades, which occursin November, and was still in progress when the Feast o abernaclesarrived in October.4 Te siege most likely took place in the rst yearo Hyrcanus’ reign (135/4 ). Afer besieging Jerusalem or over ayear, Antiochus abruptly abandoned the siege and allowed Hyrcanusto celebrate abernacles.

essa Rajak has suggested that Josephus’ senatorial decrees, whichmention an unspecied “Antiochus,” date to this time.5 I so, they

offer a plausible explanation or Antiochus’ perplexing behavior. TeRomans likely intervened diplomatically on Hyrcanus’ behal in orderto check Antiochus’ territorial ambitions. Although the Romans likelysaved Hyrcanus, his uture was uncertain. Tereore, he became areluctant Seleucid ally. However, Hyrcanus used a clever stratagemto deeat Antiochus when he claimed that Jews could not ght duringreligious estivals.6 Rather than piety, it was Hyrcanus’ astute diplo-

4 Arrival o abernacles ( Ant. 13.241); Date o the Pleiades (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 2.47.125; Ant. 13.237). It impossible to reconcile the regnal years with the reerenceso the Olympiad given by Josephus ( Ant. 13.236). For detailed discussions o this issue,and the historical sources, see urther, Sievers 1990, 136; Schürer 1973, 1:202–03 n. 5;VanderKam 2004, 288.

5 Rajak 1981, 65–81. Josephus, Ant. 13.260–64; 14.249–50. For additional evidencethat supports this thesis, see Kasher 1990, 116–19; Schürer 1973, 1:204–6; Sievers1990, 138–40. For the problems in reconciling Josephus’ different accounts o theHasmonean missions to Rome with Roman records, see urther the sources cited in

Gruen 1984, 748–51.6 Several authors have noted that no such prohibition exists in the Bible or rabbinicliterature. Sievers 1990, 135–6; VanderKam 2004, 288; Werner 1877, 25. Josephus andother writers mention a number o incidents when Gentiles used the Jewish restric-tion against ghting on the Sabbath to their military advantage. See, or example, Ant.12.4–6; 13.14, 252, 337; 18.314–19, 322–24, 354; 1 Macc. 2:29–37, 41; 2 Macc. 5:24–26,6:11; Jub. 50:12. C. Frontinus, Strategemata, 2.1.17. For this issue, see urther theevidence cited in Johns, 1963: 482–86; Weiss 1998: 363–90. By the time o the Macca-bean period, Jews regularly ought on the Sabbath. Mattathias’ decree permitting Sab-bath ghting is recorded in 1 Macc. 2:41. Moreover, there is some evidence that thePharisees, as a result o the Maccabean crisis, came to accept ghting on the Sabbathwhereas the Sadducees did not. See urther, Regev 1997, 276–89. Given this evidence,

Hyrcanus’ reluctance to ght on the Sabbath may—in addition to serving as a ruse toavoid ghting and undermine Antiochus—have been based on Sadducean halakah.For evidence that Sadducean halakah was more stringent than Pharisaic interpretationo the Law, see Sussmann 1994, 179–200.


26/452

11

macy and cleverness—as well as good luck, or perhaps we should say ortuna—that saved Judea.

Te Antiquities and War differ as to when Hyrcanus began his warso expansion. In the War they occurred while Antiochus ought theParthians (War 1.62–3) whereas in the Antiquities they began aferthe death o Antiochus ( Ant. 13.273). Te archaeological evidence sug-gests another scenario. Tere is a gap in the numismatic and occu-pational records or a variety o cities beginning rom 112/111 onward. Tese include such strategic sites as Marisa, Beer Sheba,Mount Gerizim, Schechem, as well as Samaria. Te destruction layers,and occupational gaps, rom these and other cities appear to correlate

with Josephus’ lists o Hyrcanus’ conquests.7 Tis evidence indicatesthat Hyrcanus had actually postponed his wars o expansion until aferthe Seleucid civil wars, a period o approximately twenty-three yearsafer he had taken the throne. Rather than the ormidable warrior oJosephus’ Antiquities who openly deed and challenged the might othe Seleucid Empire, Hyrcanus waited until the Seleucid threat had

vanished beore he began his wars o conquest.

III. Judah Aristobulus

1. Fiction

Josephus’ account o Judah Aristobulus is relatively short and con-tains little historical inormation.8 Consequently, I will make only aew brie comments on his reign. Upon succeeding his ather, Judahproclaimed himsel king and high priest, imprisoned his brothers—

with the exception o Antigonus—and killed his mother. His reignquickly disintegrated due to rumors spread by “unscrupulous men”who plotted against him and Antigonus ( Ant. 13.305; War 1.74). In his Antiquities, Josephus partially revised his earlier account to heightenthe tragedy o Judah’s brie reign. In this book, Judah was tricked bya group o conspirators, including his wie, into killing Antigonus. In

7 Barag 1992–1993: 1–12. See urther, Hengel 1974, 1: 62, 2: 44–5 n. 32; Sievers1990, 141–44; Schwartz 2001, 36–8.

8 War 1.70–84; Ant. 13.301–19.


27/452


28/452

13

nal revolts.11 At the conclusion o all these blocks o material, Jannaeussomehow emerged the better since he had survived and went on to

ght additional wars o expansion and annexed new territories to hisrealm. Despite his numerous setbacks, Josephus consistently portrayedJannaeus as a ormidable warrior, who completed his ather’s wars oconquest.

Josephus presented Jannaeus’ reign as a tragedy. Like his brotherJudah Aristobulus, Jannaeus was a violent and unstable man. However,Josephus partially exonerated him or his aults. He implied that manyo his cruel actions were understandable given his difficult circum-stances.12 By explaining away Jananeus’ shortcomings, and highlight-

ing his military conquests, Josephus’ account also praises Hyrcanus.According to Josephus, God had told Hyrcanus o his unborn son Jan-naeus’ successes ( Ant. 13.322). By completing Hyrcanus’ expansion oJudea, Jannaeus’ military successes conrmed both his ather’s great-ness and prophetic gifs

2. Fact

Archaeological evidence and textual sources rom Jannaeus’ reign callinto question Josephus’ narrative. Tis is especially true or the “Waro Scepters” (103–101 )—a conict or which Josephus suppliedno absolute dates.13 According to his narrative, Jannaeus’ attack uponPtolemais essentially precipitated this international conict. Te inhab-itants o this city called upon Ptolemy Lathyrus (Ptolemy IX Soter II) inCyprus or help. Afer losing in battle against Lathyrus, Jannaeus suedor peace. At the same time, he secretly contacted Lathyrus’ motherCleopatra III and asked that she provide him with military assistance.

Once Lathyrus learned o Jannaeus’ treachery, he attacked Judea.Cleopatra then sent her other son Ptolemy Alexander (Ptolemy X

11 Both books ollow this basic sequence, although only the Antiquities containsdetailed accounts o the two invasions. Antiquities: Campaign ( Ant. 13.324–29); Inva-sion o Lathyrus ( Ant. 13.330–55); Seleucid Civil Wars ( Ant. 13.365–71); Revolt ( Ant.13.372–73); Campaign ( Ant. 13.374–78); Revolt ( Ant. 13.379–83); Seleucid Civil Wars( Ant. 13.384–86); Invasion o Dionysus and Aretas ( Ant. 13.387–92); Campaign ( Ant.13.393–404). War: Invasion o Lathyrus (War 1.86); Campaign (War 1.87); Revolt (War

1.88); Campaign (War 1.89–90); Revolt (War 1.91–98); Campaign (War 1.99–106).12 Mason 1991, 247–8.13 Te name o this conict is taken rom line 12 o the Cairo INV. 9205 (Van’t

Dack, et al., 1989, 84–5), which reads: “when a war o scepters came to Syria.”


29/452

14

Alexander I) with a eet to Phoenicia while she traveled by land toPtolemais.14 Afer capturing the city, her orces chased Lathyrus to Gaza

where he wintered beore he returned to Cyprus ( Ant. 13.348–51).Egyptian records suggest that Josephus has greatly simplied the

events o this conict to enhance Jananeus’ role. Jannaeus’ attack uponPtolemais took place at the latest in the early spring o 103 . AnEgyptian papyrus rom Pathyris, south o Tebes, dated to June 29o that year indicates that Cleopatra III had already mobilized troopsand moved them rom their usual garrisons.15 Tis action was under-taken in reaction to Lathyrus’ intervention. Presumably, Lathyrushad arrived at Ptolemais by this date and had orced Jannaeus to end

his siege. According to Josephus, Jannaeus had eigned overtures opeace with Lathyrus while he was engaged in secret negotiations withCleopatra III. Upon learning o this betrayal, Lathyrus besieged Ptole-mais. He then lef his generals behind in charge o this campaign anddeeated Jannaeus’ army at Asophon/Asaphon. Lathyrus then pro-ceeded to ravage Galilee ( Ant. 13.336–46).

Josephus’ chronology is rather imprecise. He stated that Lathy-rus attacked Ptolemais beore he pursued Jannaeus, but he does notdescribe the actual siege ( Ant. 13.324–37). Fortunately, Egyptian evi-dence allows us to rene Josephus’ chronology or this period. Teautobiographical inscription o the Egyptian general Petimuthesmentioned that Cleopatra captured Ptolemais, which conrms Jose-phus’ account that she took this city ( Ant. 13.348–51).16 However,a letter written in Ptolemais beore its capture, dated September 27,103 , mentions that Cleopatra’s son Ptolemy Alexander had lefDamascus—an event not recorded by Josephus—and had stationed acompany o men there.17 A demotic Serapeum stele rom Memphis

places Ptolemy Alexander and his army at Pelusium in either Feb-

14 Tere is some conusion as to the numbering o the Ptolemaic rulers, especiallyPtolemy VII Euergetes as Ptolemy VIII Euergetes. For this issue, see urther the num-bering and discussions in Hölbl 2001, 204–13; Sievers 2005, 34–5 n. 6; Whitehorne1994, 103–48, 203–9. See also, Samuel 1962, 147–55.

15 P. Gren. I 30 + P. Amh. II 39 (Van’t Dack, et al., 1989, 39–49). All papyri andinscriptions cited in this article are rom this critical edition. For the events o thisPtolemaic civil war that involved Jannaeus, see urther Hölbl 2001, 201–15.

16 urin, Museo Egizio cat. 3062 + Karnak, Karakol n° 258 (Van’t Dack, et al., 1989,

88–108). Josephus does not explicitly state, but strongly implies, that Lathyrus hadpreviously captured Ptolemais ( Ant. 336–7). See urther Schürer 1979, 2:124.17 P. dem. BM inv. 69008 + P. dem. Berl. Inv. 13381 (Van’t Dack, et al., 1989,

50–61).


30/452

15

ruary or June o 102 18 Ptolemy Alexander must have traveledto Pelusium to prevent Lathyrus, who was then wintering in nearby

Gaza, rom invading Egypt ( Ant. 13.348). However, the dates o theEgyptian correspondence indicate that Ptolemaic troops were still atPtolemais on September 25, 102 , long afer Lathyrus had returnedto Cyprus.19

Te Egyptian evidence shows that Josephus has omitted many detailsconcerning the early events o Jannaeus’ reign to enhance his militaryreputation and to conceal his weaknesses. Josephus merely recordedthat Cleopatra sent her son Ptolemy Alexander to Phoenicia. How-ever, the Egyptian evidence shows that she had sent him to Damascus

or reasons that are not specied in the extant documentation. It islikely that Cleopatra sent Ptolemy Alexander to help Antiochus VIIIGrypus take the city rom Antiochus IX Cyzicenus.20 Although theexact reason or Ptolemy Alexander’s trip is uncertain, there is goodcircumstantial evidence that his mother sent him there as part o aplanned annexation o Seleucia and Judea. It is clear that i Cleopatrahad captured Damascus and Ptolemais, as well as southern Phoenicia,she would have controlled most o Coele-Syria. With this geographi-cal base, she would have been in the perect position to annex Judeaand incorporate much o the Middle East into the Ptolemaic Empire.From the Egyptian evidence, we know that Ptolemy Alexander trav-eled rom Damascus to Gaza in pursuit o Lathyrus, which means thathe had transited through Jananeus’ territory. Tis act unmentionedby Josephus, shows that Jannaeus was merely a minor player in theevents o this time. He had no recourse but to try to paciy the Egyp-tians in the hope that they would not annex Judea or continue to ght

18 Serapeum Stele, Louvre, INV. 3709 (Van’t Dack, et al., 1989, 83–4). Te readingo the month is uncertain.

19 P. Gren. I 35 (Van’t Dack, et al., 1989, 75–77). Another document suggests thatdemobilization o Egyptian troops had not been completed by January 13, 101 .See P. Gr. Louvre inv. 10593 (Van’t Dack, et al., 1989, 77–81). Lathyrus spent thewinter o 103/2 in Gaza and then returned to Cyprus. Hölbl 2001, 209.

20 Lathyrus had aided Cyzicenus in his battle against John Hyrcanus over Samaria.He did so despite the objections o his mother Cleopatra III ( Ant. 13.278). Grypus wasan ally o Ptolemy Alexander (Justin, 39.4.4; text in Van’t Dack, et al., 1989, 15–18,27–9). Te coin evidence rom Damascus shows that it constantly changed hands

between Cyzicenus and Grypus. For this reason, it is difficult to determine exactlywhich leader controlled the city at this time. For evidence in support o the ollow-ing historical reconstruction, see urther Hölbl 2001, 207–9; Van’t Dack, et al., 1989,121–24; Whitehorne 1994, 138–41.


31/452

16

their dynastic wars on his land. It is likely that the War o Scepterswould have taken place regardless o whether Jannaeus had attacked

Ptolemais.Josephus gives the Jews a major role in Cleopatra’s campaign against

her wayward son Lathyrus. However, the Egyptian records make it clearthat Ptolemy Alexander, not the Jewish general Chelkias, commandedthe Egyptian troops. Moreover, the autobiographical inscription o theEgyptian general Petimuthes states that he was with Cleopatra whenshe captured Ptolemais. Te evidence shows that Cleopatra’s expedi-tion was a major undertaking in which her son Ptolemy Alexanderand her highest-ranking Egyptian officers had participated. Jananeus

played no major role in this conict.21 Cleopatra likely came not tohelp Judea, but to annex Coele-Syria and likely Jananeus’ kingdom aswell. It is unlikely that Cleopatra’s Jewish generals had anything to dowith Judea’s survival. Jannaeus most likely made a treaty with Cleopa-tra as a vassal in order to maintain his throne.

According to Josephus, afer the conclusion o this conict in 101, Jannaeus immediately campaigned in Coele-Syria and beyond theJordan ( Ant. 13.356). Afer Lathyrus departed Gaza or Cyprus, Jan-naeus attacked and captured Gaza ollowing a one-year siege ( Ant. 13.358–64). Because Lathyrus wintered in Gaza in either 103/102 and returned to Cyprus shortly thereafer, according to Josephus’chronology Jannaeus’ siege took place at this time. However, Egyptiandocuments or the next seven months, rom April 17, 102 untilSeptember 25, 102 , show that Cleopatra stationed orces along theJudean border.22 Te presence o Ptolemaic troops in Pelusium at sucha late date afer the departure o Lathyrus suggests the Egyptians didnot trust Jannaeus. It is unlikely that Jannaeus would have attacked

Gaza when potentially hostile Egyptian orces were nearby. Based onthe Egyptian evidence, it is clear that Jannaeus did not attack Gazaimmediately ollowing the conclusion o the War o Scepters.

Elsewhere in his Antiquities, Josephus provides another chrono-logical reerence that contradicts his placement o Jannaeus’ siege oGaza ollowing the conclusion o the War o Scepters. In his narra-tive o Syrian civil wars, Josephus mentions that Jannaeus’ siege o

21 See urther, Van’t Dack, et al., 1989, 124–36.22 P. Gren. Inv. 628 (Van’t Dack, et al., 1989, 61–2); P. Gren. I 35 (Van’t Dack,

et al., 1989, 75–7); P. Gren. I 32 (Van’t Dack, et al., 1989, 61–5).


32/452

17

Gaza coincided with the murder o Grypus in 96 . ( Ant. 13.365).23 Tis is a more reasonable date or Jannaeus’ campaign against Gaza

since it is unlikely that he would have attacked the city earlier in 102 when Ptolemy Alexander had troops nearby. In light o Egyptiandocumentation, it appears that Jannaeus, like his ather Hyrcanus, wasa cautious leader who waited until afer the superpowers o his dayhad weakened themselves through civil war beore he began his warso conquest.

V. Salome Alexandra

1. Fiction

Josephus’ account o Salome Alexandra is quite brie.24 He devoted asmuch space to her nine-years in office as he did to the one-year ruleo Judah Aristobulus. He recorded our major events during SalomeAlexandra’s reign; three military campaigns and two attempted insur-rections led by her son Aristobulus II.25 Only her rst military expedi-tion at Ragaba was successul. However, it was not her victory, but herhusband’s. She merely ollowed Jananeus’ orders and kept his death asecret until the ortress had been taken.

According to Josephus, Judea quickly ell apart once Salome Alex-andra assumed power. She immediately aced an insurrection led byher son Aristobulus II. Afer paciying Aristobulus II, she sent himto Damascus to oppose the strongman Ptolemy Mennaeus. Accord-ing to Josephus, this expedition ailed to accomplish “anything note-worthy” ( Ant. 13.418; c. War 1.115). About the same time, igranes

o Armenia invaded Syria and besieged Ptolemais. Salome Alexandraapproached him with gifs to convince him to abandon his plan toinvade Judea. Josephus implied that Judea was saved only throughluck. Just afer he had captured Ptolemais, igranes learned that the

23 For a different reconstruction and understanding o this passage, see Kasher1990, 145–50. See also Schürer 1979, 2:101.

24 War 1.107–19; Ant. 13.407–32.25 Antiquities: Capture o Ragaba ( Ant. 13.405); attempted insurrection ( Ant.

13.406–418); campaign against Damascus ( Ant. 13.418); campaign against igranes( Ant. 13.419–21); attempted insurrection ( Ant. 13.422–29). War: Insurrection (War1.110–14); campaign against Damascus (War 1.115); campaign against igranes (War1.116); attempted insurrection (War 1.117–19).


33/452

18

Roman consul Lucullus had invaded his homeland. Consequently, hehad to abandon his newly acquired territories and return to Arme-

nia.26

In her nal days, Salome Alexandra aced a coup led by her sonAristobulus II. Beore her death, she appointed Hyrcanus II as hersuccessor, leaving him a kingdom in disarray.27 Shortly afer she died,Aristobulus removed his brother Hyrcanus rom power. Hyrcanuslater rekindled their civil war. As a result o this conict, the Romansannexed Judea and ended Hasmonean rule only our years afer SalomeAlexandra’s death.28

2. Fact Josephus’ Antiquities ollows the basic structure o the War. However,he has largely restructured and expanded the Antiquities to emphasizethe instability o Salome Alexandra’s reign. Josephus accomplishes thisthrough the addition o several chronological phrases at key placesin his narrative to imply that her political troubles and military cam-paigns ollowed one another in rapid succession.29 In reality, theseevents were separated by lengthy periods o time. In order to under-stand the extent to which Josephus has tarnished Salome Alexandra’smemory, we must briey look at two incidents that took place dur-ing her husband’s reign. None o these are documented in Josephus’books. Both pertain to the Nabateans.

Te invasion o Antiochus XII Dionysus is the perhaps the mostpuzzling section o Josephus’ history o Jannaeus’ reign. Josephus’account is clearly selective and incomplete and does not adequatelyexplain Jannaeus’ Nabatean policy. According to his War Dionysusattempted to transit Judea to invade the Nabatean Arabs. Jannaeus

26 igranes invaded Syria in 83 and expelled the Seleucid kings rom northernSyria and lowland Cilicia. For ourteen years (83 –69 ) he ruled the Seleucidkingdom until he was deeated by the Roman general Lucullus or the nal time in68 . For igranes, and the events o this time, see urther Sherwin-White 1994,262–65.

27 According to Josephus, Hyrcanus II reigned or three months ( Ant . 15.180) aferhis mother’s death. However, it is likely that he actually governed as king or a shorttime beore Salome Alexandra’s death (War 1.120). For this possibility, see urtherVanderKam 2004, 337–39.

28

For these events in the Psalms o Solomon, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and classicaltexts, see urther Atkinson 2004, 113–27.29 “not long aferward” ( Ant. 13.418); “about this time” ( Ant. 13.419); “some time

afer this” ( Ant. 13.422).


34/452

19

erected a ortied wall and trench to prevent him rom reachingNabatea. Dionysus easily destroyed these ortications, preceded

to Nabatea, and subsequently died in battle (War 1.99–102). In the Antiquities, Josephus situated these events against the backdrop o theSeleucid civil war between Dionysus and his brother Philip. Afer Dio-nysus had captured Damascus rom Philip, he had his encounter withJannaeus ( Ant. 13.387–91).30 In neither account does Josephus explainDionysus’ unusual circuitous route to the Judean coast rather thandirectly towards Nabatea. Moreover, it is unclear why Jannaeus wouldhave prevented Dionysus rom traveling to Nabatea. Tis is especiallyperplexing since an engagement between these two enemies o Jan-

naeus would have only weakened them and helped to secure Judea’ssaety. By risking a direct conrontation with Dionysus, Jannaeus puthis kingdom in jeopardy.

Te Byzantine chronographer George Synkellos supplements Jose-phus’ account o this period with inormation that he obtained roman unspecied source. He mentioned that Jannaeus had been victori-ous in a war that he had launched against Dionysus.31 Because Dio-nysus died during his campaign against the Nabateans, afer he haddestroyed Jannaeus’ wall and ortications, the conict documentedby Synkellos must have preceded Josephus’ account. In light o thisearlier conict, it is clear that the campaign o Dionysus recorded byJosephus was actually against both Nabatea and Judea. Te locationo Jannaeus’ wall at the southern coast o Judea shows that Dionysusdid not merely intend to transit Judea. Rather, he clearly meant toannex its port cities as retribution or Jannaeus’ prior attack. Jannaeus’ortications described by Josephus were designed not to keep Diony-sus rom reaching Nabatea, but to keep him rom capturing Judea’s

coastal region.Afer the Nabateans killed Dionysus in battle, their king Aretas IIItook control o Damascus around 85 32 For reasons unstated byJosephus, the people o Damascus had encouraged the Nabateans toinvade and remove the Iturean Ptolemy Mennaeus rom power. LikeJannaeus, Ptolemy wanted to control the Mediterranean ports as wellas Seleucia and Nabatea. Shortly afer Aretas had captured Damascus,

30 For this period and the last Seleucid rulers, see urther Bevan 1902, 247–68.31 Dindor 1829, 559.32 Shatzman 1991, 120–1; Schürer 1973, Appendix II, 578–9.


35/452


36/452

21

the “Arabs” took place during Salome Alexandra’s reign beoreHyrcanus II rebelled against his brother, an act which is mentioned

in line 6. Te rst line o 4QHistorical ext D (4Q332) could possi-bly reer to Salome Alexandra’s campaign against Ptolemy Mennaeus,who had somehow regained Damascus rom Aretas (Ant. 13.418;War 1.115). Salome Alexandra had apparently made a treaty with theNabatean Arabs and undertook this campaign to restore Aretas to thethrone o Damascus, which may actually be alluded to by Josephus(Ant. 13.409).37 4QHistorical ext D likely reects the events o thistime, when Salome Alexandra sent Aristobulus to restore Damascusto her Nabatean ally, and may help to clariy some o the conusion in

Josephus’ accounts o the period. It is clear that Josephus’ deliberateomission o important events has not only resulted in a rather bewil-dering historical sequence or Salome Alexandra’s reign, but actuallydiminishes her accomplishments.38 An alliance between Salome Alex-andra and the Nabateans may also explain the circumstances behindJosephus’ puzzling story o her supplication beore igranes.

Josephus juxtaposed Aristobulus’ campaign against Ptolemy Men-naeus in Damascus with igranes’ invasion o Seleucia ( Ant. 13.418–2;War 1. 115–16). By placing these events alongside one another withoutany commentary as to why Salome Alexandra sent her son to Damas-cus, the reader is lef to conclude that igranes’ unexpected appear-ance had rustrated her expansionist agenda. She supposedly had toretreat rom Damascus upon hearing o igranes’ arrival and thenapproach him as a supplicant to save her kingdom. Aristobulus’ cam-paign is usually dated to 72 , which is the same year that igranesinvaded Seleucia. Tis date is largely based on the numismatic evi-dence rom Damascus. Aretas minted coins there between 84 and

74 , which demonstrates that he held the city during this time.igranes invaded Coele-Syria in 72/1 , and took Damascus and

37 Such an alliance between the Hasmoneans and the Nabateans at this time wouldalso explain the puzzling incident that took place afer Salome Alexandra’s death whenAretas ought alongside Hyrcanus II against Aristobulus II. Aretas was apparentlystill bound by this treaty to lend military assistance to Salome Alexandra’s designatedsuccessor, Hyrcanus II ( Ant. 14.19; War 1.126). Tis military assistance providesadditional evidence or the existence o a treaty between the Hasmoneans and the

Nabateans, ollowing the death o Alexander Jannaeus, that was not mentioned inJosephus’ books.38 For this issue, see urther the discussion o Josephus’ portrayal o the Hasmoneans

and Salome Alexandra in Baltrusch 2001, 163–79.


37/452

22

minted coins there between 72/1–70/69 .39 Aristobulus’ campaignto Damascus certainly preceded igranes’ advance, a time-line which

suggests that the Nabateans had possibly evacuated the city severalyears earlier. Whether it was due to incursions rom Ptolemy Men-naeus or the threat o an Armenian invasion is uncertain.

Is signicant is that Aristobulus’ campaign to Damascus would havetaken place, based on the coin evidence, in 72 afer Salome Alexan-dra had been in power or our years. Josephus implies that igranes’advance thwarted her effort to capture Damascus and compelled herson Aristoublus to return home; a campaign that Josephus commentedaccomplished nothing noteworthy (War 1.115; Ant. 13.418). However,

Salome Alexandra may have known o igranes’ invasion quite earlyand sent Aristobulus to Damascus. Tis event would have potentiallythreatened igranes as he moved towards Ptolemais. Salome Alexan-dra could have possibly attacked him on the coast, which would havedeprived him o an escape route. I these were her intentions, then thiscampaign achieved its intended goal. By the time Salome approachedigranes, he likely realized that he had overextended his reach. Hewas besieging Cleopatra Selene in Ptolemais and now aced a possiblethreat rom Salome Alexandra and her Nabatean allies.40 Moreover,Josephus even mentioned that Salome Alexandra had increased the sizeo her army during the previous our years, added a new contingento mercenaries, and orced the surrounding nations to make peaceand send her hostages ( Ant. 13.409). With her vast army—accordingto Josephus’ estimation more powerul than her husband’s—SalomeAlexandra likely approached igranes as an equal and orced him tomake a treaty with her. By ocusing upon her domestic troubles, Jose-phus’ narrative greatly obscures Salome Alexandra’s military and dip-

lomatic skills and the act that her reign was likely the most peaceuland prosperous period o Hasmonean history.41

39 He likely held the city as early as 72/1 . For this numismatic evidence, seeurther Shatzman 1991 , 122–23; Schürer 1973 , 1:134–5, 564–5, 578–9.

40 igranes captured Damascus in 69 and took Cleopatra Selene captive. Shewas deported to Seleucia-on-the-igras and later executed. See urther Strabo, Geo-

graphica 16.749; Bevan 1902, 266; Chahin 1987, 225–41; Macurdy 1932 , 170–2; White-horne 1994, 164–73.41 Atkinson 2003: 37–56. For Josephus’ possible reshaping o his sources to dimin-

ish Salome Alexandra’s achievements, see urther Ilan 2006, 56–60.


38/452

23

VI. Historiography

Josephus was a skilled historian. He clearly used sources to write engag-ing accounts o the events o his own day and the past. Yet, he was nota mere compiler, but an author who impressed his own personalityupon his works. Trough alterations, additions, deletions, and omis-sions, Josephus created what may be termed crafed texts that ofen tellus as much about the Hasmoneans as they do about Josephus.42

I believe that Josephus crafed his accounts o the Hasmoneanperiod in light o the First Jewish Revolt. Consequently, his books arenot mere descriptive reports, but largely reinterpretations o the past

in light o his social-location in Rome as a proud descendant o theHasmoneans who—whether a willing or a reluctant accomplice is stilla subject o intense debate—helped to destroy the independent statehis ancestors had created.43 Let me briey summarize how Josephus’social location has inuenced his accounts o the Hasmoneans I haveexamined in this study.

John Hyrcanus

A look at Josephus’ social-location and his Lie may offer some rea-sons as to why he has altered his chronology to magniy Hyrcanus’achievements. Josephus liked to point out his Hasmonean lineage andhis own gifs as a warrior, leader, priest, and prophet (War 3.351–3;Lie, 1–9). He even named his rst-born son Hyrcanus (Lie, 5). BothJosephus and John Hyrcanus were reluctant allies in oolish military

ventures against stronger oreign adversaries. Yet, God delivered bothmen rom the hands o their enemies. Like Hyrcanus, Josephus also

achieved great success at a young age and provoked the envy o lessgifed people. Both had to end off malicious accusations and weregreat warriors. For both men, the Pharisees and the masses causeddissension. Hyrcanus had the oresight to see that this rabble wouldeventually bring down the Hasmonean dynasty.44 Likewise, Josephus

42 Metaphor o crafed text rom McLaren 1998, 45. For the importance o Jose-phus’ social location or understanding his works, see McLaren 2004, 90–108. Forsurvey o scholarship on Josephus and his sources, see Mason 1991, 45–53.

43

For this issue and trends in Josephus research, see urther the discussions andbibliography in Bilde 1998, esp. 123–206.44 For the inuence o the Pharisees and the mobs in Josephus’ writings, see urther

the discussions in Mason 1991, 213–45; ibid., 2001, 66–67; Toma 1994, 134–5.


39/452

24

predicted that religious dissension and mob rule would bring aboutthe end o Judean independence. I the Judeans had listened to Hyr-

canus, Hasmonean rule would have likely continued. Failing to learnthis lesson, the Judeans once again ailed to heed a prophet in theirmidst and listen to Josephus. In this instance, the result was cata-strophic, or the Romans were orced to end Judean independence orall time. Trough a creative manipulation o the acts, Josephus pre-sented both Hyrcanus and himsel as tragic gures. Both were piouspriests, ormidable warriors, and prophets who were misunderstoodby their own people.

Judah Aristobulus

Josephus’ portrayal o Judah Aristobulus serves as a warning. It showshow rumors can bring down good men. Judah was basically a goodking whose reign was destroyed by his love or his brother and treach-ery. Such was also the true o Josephus, who—at least according tohis own testimony throughout his Lie—was also a good man whoaced treachery, rumors, and circumstances beyond his control. Tisassociation may explain Josephus’ rather inappropriate eulogy in his Antiquities on Aristobulus’ greatness. Josephus apparently elt a kin-ship with this with tragic gure and chose to add a short tribute tohim in his later book to counter his misortunate portrayal o Judah’sreign.45 Although praising him, this tribute also serves to emphasizethe tragic elements o Judah’s brie year in power. God had, afer all,orewarned Hyrcanus that Judah would never prove to be his equaland that Alexander Jannaeus would become his true heir.

Alexander Jannaeus

Josephus highlights Jannaeus’ military conquests largely to emphasizeJohn Hyrcanus’ greatness. God had told Hyrcanus the prophet in adream that his unborn son Jannaeus would become heir o all his pos-sessions. By expanding Judea, Jannaeus’ conquests testiy to the mag-nitude o Hyrcanus’ prophetic gifs. However, Josephus has presented

45

Josephus partly revised his earlier account in his Antiquities to heighten the trag-edy o the story by ocusing upon how the conspirators, including his wie, had trickedhim into killing Antigonus. See urther, Mason 1991, 255–6. See also, Kasher 1990,133–34.


40/452

25

his readers with a very select account o Jannaeus’ reign that ofenglossed over his military ailures that nearly brought about the end o

Judean independence. As or Jannaeus’ cruelty, Josephus commentedthat we should not look too harshly upon him. His actions are some-what justiable in light o his terrible circumstances. Jannaeus merelytried the best he could to hold his nation together through civil wars,rumors, and oreign invasions. Once again, this description aptly tsJosephus, who in equally trying circumstances did the best he couldto preserve his nation.

Salome AlexandraSalome Alexandra is the ruler Josephus despised most o all. Heintended her reign to serve as a warning o the consequences thatensue when men ail to ulll their duties and assume power. Sheallowed the Pharisees and the masses unprecedented control over stateaffairs.46 Josephus’ Lie testies to the danger o such alliances and theconsequences o what happens when mobs rule and people are not ledby the appropriate leaders.47 By obscuring her military achievements,Josephus largely blamed her or the tragic reigns o her sons as well asthe Roman conquest.

Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II

Salome Alexandra’s sons Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II are also tragicgures. According to Josephus, Salome Alexandra’s misguided policiesdoomed their reigns beore they began. In his Antiquities, Josephus evenomitted his earlier praise o Salome Alexandra to state that her policies

had brought about the end o Hasmonean rule ( Ant. 13.430–32). Jose-phus clearly sided with Aristobulus and the leading citizens againstSalome Alexandra and her Pharisaic sponsors.48 In Josephus’ books,the disastrous civil war between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus weakenedthe nation and provided the Romans with an opportunity to easily

46 For this theme, see urther Mason 1991, 82–115, 246–59. For other distortionso Salome Alexandra’s reign in Josephus’ books in light o later rabbinic accounts, see

urther Ilan 2006, 35–60.47 For this theme, as well as Josephus’ use o rhetoric to justiy his own actions, seeurther Josephus’ Lie and the comments on these topics in Mason 2001, xiii–lii.

48 Mason 1991, 253–56.


41/452

26

conquer Judea. Tis conict mirrored the civil war o Josephus’ ownday, which likewise destroyed Judea and made it easy prey or Ves-

pasian’s legions. Josephus intended his readers to reect upon thisstruggle, as well as the tumultuous events o the Hasmonean period,and conclude that only people like Josephus were qualied to leadthe Jews.

VII. Conclusion

It is important to take into consideration Josephus’ social location

when reading his accounts o Hasmonean history. Rather than ac-tual chronological historical narratives, Josephus’ War and Antiquities are largely historically inspired works o ction. We should exerciseextreme caution in using Josephus’ books to write a history o theHasmonean period. Tey tell us as much about the Judea o the rstcentury . as they do about the Judea o Josephus’ day.

Bibliography

Atkinson, Kenneth. 2004. I Cried to the Lord: A Study o the Psalms o Solomon’sHistorical Background and Social Setting . Leiden: Brill.

——. 2003. Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Evidence or a Qumran Renaissance Dur-ing the Reign o Queen Salome Alexandra. Te Qumran Chronicle 11: 37–56.

Barag, Dan. 1992–1993. New Evidence on the Foreign Policy o John Hyrcanus I.Israel Numismatic Journal 12: 1–12.

Baltrusch, Ernst. 2001. Königin Salome Alexandra (76–67 v. chr.) und die Verassungdes hamonäischen Staates. Historia 50: 163–79.

Bevan, Edwyn Robert. 1902. Te House o Seleucus. Chicago: Ares.Bilde, Per. 1988. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Lie, his Works,

and their Importance. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Chahin, M. 1987. Te Kingdom o Armenia. London: Croom Helm.Dindor, W., ed. 1829. Georgius Syncellus et Nicephorus Cp. Bonnae: E. Weber.Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 2000. 4QHistorical ext D. Pages 281–86 In Qumran Cave 4

XXVI: Cryptic exts and Miscellanea, Part I . Edited by Stephen J. Pann, et al.Oxord: Clarendon Press.

Gruen, Eric S. 1984. Te Hellenistic World and the Coming o Rome, 2 vols. Berkeley:University o Caliornia Press.

Hengel, Martin. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in PalestineDuring the early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Hölbl, Günther. 2001. A History o the Ptolemaic Empire. ranslated by ina Saavedra.London: Routledge.

Ilan, al. 2006. Silencing the Queen: Te Literary Histories o Shelamzion and Other Jewish Women. übingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Johns, A. F. 1963. Te Military Strategy o Sabbath Attacks on the Jews. Vetus esta-mentum 13: 482–86.


42/452


43/452


44/452

SOCIOECONOMIC HIERARCHY AND IS ECONOMICFOUNDAIONS IN FIRS CENURY GALILEE:

HE EVIDENCE FROM YODEFA AND GAMLA

Mordechai Aviam

Introduction

Te most common approach to the study o the socio-economic struc-ture in the Galilee at the time o Jesus and the First Jewish Revolt wasdeveloped through the research o the New estament and the workso Josephus Flavius, and one can summarize the common picture as“wealthy cities” and “poor villages”.1 According to the New estament,Jesus visited mainly the rural parts o Galilee and avoided the cities,although in Matthew 4:25 people rom the Decapolis appeal or helprom Jesus. Bethsaida is mentioned a ew times as having been vis-ited by Jesus, although it is unclear i Bethsaida was a city or a polis?Hence, as a reection o the narratives o the New estament, thecommon view o Galilee became “the land o peasants”.2 Outside othe ew reerences to “the lands (the territories) o Caesarea Philippi”and the “lands (the territories) o yre and Sidon” Jesus did not visitcities. He did not requent iberias, Sepphoris, Hippos, Scythopolis orPtolemais. Were the Galilean villagers poor, or were the city men rich?When one reads Josephus careully, the scene looks slightly different.Te only time that the terms “poor” or “destitute”, regarding people

in the Galilee, are mentioned, is when Josephus is writing about thepolitical party o “the sailors and destitute class” in iberias (Life, 66).Although no social identication was assigned to Simon and Andrewor Zebedee and his sons ( Matthew 4:18,21), it might be that sailorsand shermen around the Sea o Galilee were at the bottom o thesocial pyramid. On the other hand we have some reerences to richand wealthy homes in Galilean villages such as the statement about

1 As clearly reected in the works o both scholars: Freyne 1980: 155–208. Horsley1995, 1996.

2 Horsley 1996.


45/452

30

Chabulon, “He admired its beauty with its houses built in the style othose at yre, Sidon and Berytus” (War 2.504). Chabulon, or Kabul,

was a small village on the western outskirts o Galilee, and according toJosephus it had wonderully rich houses. Te site is usually identiedwith the modern Arab village o Kabul that has never been excavatedextensively. A second-third century tomb was excavated there withstone and clay ossuaries. Another location that could be identied asChabulon was a site north o the Arab village at Kh. Beza.3 In anothercase, Josephus speaks about the rich, ortied house o Jesus, a localleader at Gabara (Life 246). I so, the impression rom Josephus’ narra-tive is that more “poor” people lived in the cities than in the villages.

he Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla

Te archaeological excavations at both rst century northern townso Yodeat and Gamla, show that most o their inhabitants lived theirlives between levels o prosperity and simplicity, but not poverty. Tedifferent types o nds do not suggest the existence o an impoverishedpopulation, but rather a population o medium and high social ranks.Te houses that were uncovered, in both sites, but especially at Gamla,are nicely built, some o which probably belonged to very rich ami-lies. Tere were some amilies who lived in luxurious mansions thatwere decorated with rescoes and stucco. At Gamla, chunks o plas-ter with resco and stucco were discovered or the most part in whatwas called by the excavators as the “wealthy quarter”. In this area twoworkshops were identied, the rst is an oil press built inside a well-built, arched rooed building, with a miqve cut into the northern rock-

wall.4

Te second is a our-mill with a ew large grinding stones thatcould produce a large quantity o our. Te proximity o these twoworkshops to the private houses, o which some were decorated withresco and stucco, can hint that the owners o the workshops probablylived nearby and that they were o a high socio-economical class. AtYodeat an olive-press was discovered in a cave on the eastern-upperslope very close to the private houses on the eastern edge o the townin area XI. Te easiest accessible way to the oil-press was rom these

3 Aviam 2005: 15, 32.4 Miqve is the halachically mandated ritual bath.


46/452

- 31

houses. Tis proximity suggests that the owners o the olive-press livedthere. Tese houses are not as ancy as those at Gamla and neither

is the oil press itsel. Nevertheless, each o these two houses has itsown miqve which not every house in the town had. Cutting, buildingand plastering and maintaining a miqve with a special water prooplaster was not a simple and cheap task. It is very common now toassociate miqvaot with ood production, and especially with liquidssuch as oil and wine that can easily absorb impurity. Immersing intoa miqve beore and during the production process was the way to pro-duce pure oil or wine that could be sold to different groups that keptpurity laws very strictly or even directly to the emple in Jerusalem.

In contrast to the simple building in Area XI, the north-east quarter oYodeat was built in a much more delicate way. Te houses were builtalong three strong and solid terraces with wide walls, well-cut stonesand raised up to two or three stories high. Te excavation in one othe buildings yielded an unusual nd. In one o the rooms beautiullyrescoed walls were discovered preserved to a height o 1.5 m. Teyare in the “masonry style” o the Second Pompeian style, in red andochre tables separated by black, white and green stripes, and rameso marble imitation. A bigger surprise was that the oor itsel is deco-rated with rescoes o red and black pavers. Tis is a rare nd thatwas discovered in Israel only in the Herodian theater’s orchestra atCaesarea, and also at Leptis Magna in the 1st century orchestra.Retrieved among the many pieces o rescoed plaster, were also somenicely shaped pieces o stucco. According to Silvia Rosenberg o theIsrael Museum, they can be dated to the third quarter o the 1st cen-tury —the Herodian period. Tere is little doubt that mosaic oorsduring this time as were ound in the Herodian palaces and in the rich

mansions at the Western hill in Jerusalem in pre-70 , or in privatemansions at Caesarea and Dor, were even more expensive than res-coed oors; but resco work was very expensive as well. Te housesand palaces with their resco walls and mosaic oors represent thehighest class o the socio-economic pyramid. It is possible that richhouses in both Galilean capitals—Sepphoris and iberias, had similarmansions. Te house at Yodeat represents a lower class, comparedto Masada, Herodium, Jerusalem, and Caesarea, but is still very highin the social stratication. As mentioned, only a small portion o the

mansion was excavated and one can believe that there is much moreinormation about this house in Yodeat, o the Galilee and on 1stcentury lie that is lying there under less than 2 m. o debris, waiting


47/452

32

to be uncovered. Tere are also two small nds that were discovered inthis “wealthy quarter”. Te rst is a multi-nozzle gray oil lamp which

is a unique nd, and only a ew were reported rom archaeologicalexcavations. In the nal report o Masada, discussing three nozzles othis type ound at the site, Barag and Hershkowitz suggest: “it . . . seemsto be the only specimens o type XIII rom a controlled excavation inPalestine—rans-Jordan. Tis type is rather rare”.5 Te best parallelsare to be ound in private collection. Te oil lamp rom Yodeat isprobably the most complete one o this type originating in a scienticexcavation, and was doubtless a luxurious artiact. Te second nd isa ragment o a stone table, one o very ew known in the Galilee. As

Gutman already suggested or Gamla, it seems as i these towns washeavily sacked by the conquering Roman troops, as very ew luxuriousartiacts were ound in the debris. At Yodeat, a ew small scale-plateswere ound, probably used or measuring precious metals, powders orperumes, three gems, a ew rings and worked bone ragments werealso ound in different excavating elds, and very ew silver coins. Asmall hoard that included some bronze coins and seven tetradrachms rom the time o Emperor Nero, o which the latest is rom the year64 was ound in the underground shelter under the western townwall. Tis hoard is probably a small hint o the money that was in thehouses beore they were sacked by the Romans. At Gamla, a hoard otwenty yrian sheqels and seven tetradrachms rom the time o Nerowere ound in the street, and were probably lost by one o the reugees,or by one o the Roman soldiers.

An important part o the reconstruction and understanding o thesocial hierarchy within the Galilean Jewish communities is the researchand analysis o the economy o the Galilee in general, and o Yodeat

in particular.Te common view about the Galilean economy was based onassumptions and some evidence rom the texts, as well as on somearchaeological evidence rom later periods. According to them all, oliveoil was the most important product o Galilee. Josephus’ story aboutJohn o Gischala and his proteering in olive oil probably indicates thewealth o Galilee in olive oil (War 2.591–592; Life 74–75). Te nds inboth surveys and excavations at Yodeat and Gamla yielded only 1 or 2olive presses per town. Tis is not the magnitude o olive-presses that

5 Barag and Hershkovitz 1994: 24–58.


48/452

- 33

would enable the exporting o large amounts o oil rom the region.In his book Gutman ascribed part o the importance o Gamla to its

geographical position, and connected it with its olive oil productionand export.6 It should be admitted that the main problem in studyingthe 1st century Galilean economy is the lack o actual evidence, i.e., thesmall quantity o clean 1st century archaeological loci. In any case, thends rom Yodeat and Gamla impel us to prune down our condencein the importance and role o olive oil production in Galilee, at leastin the Lower Galilean economy. Te situation in Upper Galilee mightbe different, based on the story about John o Gischala. Te only com-plete oil-press ound at Yodeat is the one in the cave, it has only one

squeezing installation in contrast to the one at Gamla and MishmarHaEmeq that each used two, thereby yielding twice the productionat any given time. Oil production was an important product in theGalilean economy, it was a highly protable product, though not asimportant as was thought beore by researchers.7

We should look at other archaeological evidence to learn what themain means o production o the Galileans were. Doubtless, archae-ology will not be able to reveal all the means o production becausesome o them do not leave any archaeological trace, nevertheless somedo. As part o the study o Yodeat’s economy, I conducted a groundsurvey o the entire possible agricultural territory o the town, directedto locating and identiying agricultural remains. One o the surprisingresults was nding only 2 wine presses, (while in other areas in theGalilee there are hundreds)8 one o those was dated according to itsplaster to the Byzantine period. It does make sense that the inhabitantso Yodeat grew grapes and produced wine, but according to the sur-ace nd it was a very marginal product. Te entire potential agricul-

tural territory o Yodeat is about 15 sq. km. o which about 40% wasprobably cultivated and terraced or arming. Te rest, mostly stonyand rocky soil, was mainly grazing land. More than 25 cisterns were

6 Gutman 1994.7 We should try and learn rom Judea as well. Tree or Four First Century sites

were recently excavated in Judea: Qiryat Sepher, Kh. Etri, Modiin, and Kh. Burnatand in each one o them not more than 1–2 olive presses were ound. Tis situationis completely different rom what we know about sites rom the Late Roman and Byz-

antine periods in Galilee, Golan, Samaria and Judea (Frankel 1999, Ben David 1998,Aviam 2004: 170–180).8 Frankel 1999, Frankel and Gezov 1997, Aviam 2004, 170–80, Aviam and Shalem

orthcoming.


49/452

34

identied in the surveyed area (not including the cisterns in the town)which is much higher percentage o cisterns or an area this size than

is ound in any other surveyed and published Galilean region.9

Tis inormation was combined with the ostiological evidence romthe dig, which was analyzed by Carol Cope. According to her report,out o the 3075 identied animal bones, 80% belonged to cattle, sheepand goats, 6.8% to chickens, 2.9% to partridges, 2% to pigs (most owhich were ound in the Hellenistic levels), and the rest to variousother animals. O the 80%, 48% belonged to sheep and goats and romthe bones that can be distinguished between goats and sheep, 80.4%belonged to sheep, a much higher percentage than in the regular break-

down o ostiological nds rom the Hellenistic to Byzantine periods, inwhich the percentage o goats is little higher. All sheep bones belongto adult animals, which indicates that they were not grown mainly ormeat, but rather or wool and milk. It is likely that this conclusionmatches the evidence rom the land survey around the town whichsuggested that about hal o the land was unsuitable or arming, andthus was used or grazing. Te more than 25 cisterns that were oundin the area probably to supplied the drinking water or the herds.

In addition, during the dig more than 250 kiln-red, clay loom-weights were retrieved, the highest number ever ound in Early-Romanperiod Palestine (only at Marisa is the number larger, but most o thosewere not red and are dated to the Hellenistic period). At Gamla, wherethe excavated area is twice as large, only about 60 loom weights wereound. aking all these in consideration, it is suggested that grazingsheep and goats, and especially sheep, was one o the most importanteconomic underpinnings o the inhabitants o Yodeat, while weavingwool abrics was one o their main export products.

Surprisingly, at the southern margin o the town, we discoveredour pottery kilns. It seems as i this part o the town was mostly occu-pied by potters’ workshops and can be named “the potter’s quarter”.According to the wasters collected around the kilns, the Yodeat pot-ters produced cooking pots o the same type as Adan-Bayewitz sug-gested we call “Kar Hananya Ware”.10 Tey look the same, and theircolor is the same, yet they differ rom the “Golan Ware” identied by

9 Hanita map: Frankel and Gezov 1997 and Amqa map: Frankel and Gezov orth-coming.

10 Adan-Bayewitz 1993.


50/452

- 35

Adan-Bayewitz, as similar in shape to Kar Hananya ware, howeverdifferent in clay composition and color. Without chemical analysis it

is impossible to determine whether the Yodeat cooking pots are localproduction or an import rom Kar Hananya, or perhaps rom anotherGalilean village that produced the same type o vessels. However, theexistence o wasters prove that at least those were locally made.

Te Yodeat potters also produced a type o storage jar which is wellattested in First Century Galilean sites,11 and although we identiedthis production center at Yodeat, there is no reason to name them“Yodeat jars”. Names should be given according to the shape o the

vessels rather than the place o production, as identical types o pot-

tery were produced in different places. o identiy that type o jar itis preerable to use the term “ribbed-neck jar”. Te local potters alsoproduced other vessels such as bowls, stands, and probably the loomweights. Tis is the rst time that a pottery production center wasidentied on a top o a high hill, away rom the source o raw mate-rial. All other kilns identied in the Galilee, rom different periods, arelocated near the valleys.

It is well known in the study o the pottery industry that pottery pro-duction is one o the solutions or groups o people who suffer roma lack o arm land. Tis was also the situation at Yodeat. ogetherwith evidence o wool weaving it seems that in a creative way, Jews inmountainous Galilee adapted themselves to the geographical condi-tions o rocky terrain and lack o arable land. As their agricultural landwas poor, they developed wool and textile industry along with potteryproduction. It is clear that the potters o Yodeat had an advantageover those o Kar Hananya because they were much closer to themain markets at Sepphoris.

Finally, the bones o dozens o human beings, men, women andchildren were ound at Yodeat, gathered and buried in cisterns andcaves, and buried under the collapse o houses and ll. Tere is nochance o a mistake in d

(Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 146) Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, Menahem...

Documents

Transcript of (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 146) Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, Menahem...